Re: Numbers - Re: "F Number" vs. "Aperture Value"
Robert Krawitz <rlk-FrUbXkNCsVf2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]> Mon, 2 Dec 2019 19:13:45 -0500 (EST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.kimdaba |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20191203001345.E7010424966@localhost> |
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 23:47:35 +0100, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: > As an addendum, here is a rough translation table based on my exif > database. Taking a closer look at the invalid values reveals that > not all cameras store the APEX value at all: ApertureValue is log2(FNumber^2). Technically speaking it should probably be log2(TNumber^2) because it reflects light exposure, but still camera lenses are rated using the F number (which is a geometric relationship) rather than T number (which is photometric). For a perfectly transmissive lens with a perfectly round aperture the T number will equal the F number, but for real lenses the T number will be bigger, reflecting losses within the lens. (As an aside, motion picture lenses -- the lenses that professional cinematographers mount on their Arri, Red, Black Magic, Canon Cinema, etc. bodies -- are both rated and calibrated in T stops. That's so that if the director wants to switch from a wide angle shot to tighter framing that the light exposure will be identical. Cinema lenses are generally very expensive; they're built to very tight tolerances. A 70-200 T3.1 might have a similar optical formula to a 70-200 F/2.8, but the construction is quite different. Usually all lenses in a series are designed so that the aperture or "iris", focus, and if applicable zoom rings are identical in diameter, width, positioning, and grip surface, and the grip surface is usually geared. They're not autofocus at all and normally have an extremely long focus rotational throw. That's because the person who does the focusing, called the "focus puller", can perform extremely precise focus actions to realize the director's artistic vision.) I don't think the ApertureValue has any use on its own; it duplicates FNumber in a way that photographers don't use. Combined with ShutterValue you'd get something useful (constant exposure), although I'm not sure how many people would want to filter on it. I don't really understand why ApertureValue and ShutterValue are included at all, since they're derived from F number and shutter speed. But regardless, there's no good reason for KPA to offer ApertureValue, especially as it's not implemented correctly. > sqlite> select count(*) from exif; > 30492 > sqlite> select count(*) from exif where Exif_Photo_ApertureValue < 0.1; > 24395 > sqlite> select count(*) from exif where Exif_Photo_FNumber < 0.1; > 4135 -- Robert Krawitz <rlk-FrUbXkNCsVf2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]> *** MIT Engineers A Proud Tradition http://mitathletics.com *** Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- http://ProgFree.org Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton